ID, Creationisim, whatever you'd like to dress it up is so vigourously contested by many scientists because of the fact that it is trying to categorise itself as science. 

The notion that there is a god, and that the world (and the universe) is too complex to exist without their being a creator, is a philiosophical one (and people are quite right to believe in this if they so want to), but while there is not a shred of evidence (and if you mention faith as evidence i'll probably just block you right here and now and save us both some trouble) for the existance of god, it cannot enter the realms of science.

By simply saying 'Well we can't prove this for definite, it must be god' is anti-science. It essentially plugs up the void of the unknown with a mystical creature and discourages anyone else from removing that plug and investigating further.

There has been some recent arguements that evidence of the existance of god is there, and more recently the most notorious ones are irreduciable complexity and the improbability that life was created by pure chance.

 

Irreduciable complextity states that some organisims could not have evolved, because in order to so they would have had to have a function at each evolutionary stage.

Irreduciable complexities champion, the propelling mechanisim in bacterial flagellum, was shown to have evolved from another type of bacteria that was used to deliver protein toxins into a host victims cell membrane (like a needle).

There is also the argument of Unintelligent design, of organs such as the human heart which, if they were designed were done so highly insufficently, that it could be argued anyone designing us wasn't that intelligent at all!

The second issue, of probability, states that the the probability of life happening by chance is so small that it is unimainable. What the mathamatician that first proposed this failed to comprehend, is that the universe didn't have just one go to get it right. The sheer vastness of the univers and the amount of time it's been in existnance gives it rather a lot of opportunities to create life.

Please be aware that most scientists will not say god does not exist, we'll simply say that there is no evidence for his existance either and that until there is, religion and science has no place to be taught in the same class room.

Exactly! It is the essence of the "god of the gaps" argument.


It actually took people to realize that this was just another gaps argument.


And as we see, science keeps shrinking the gaps.

People, if you are going to believe in god(s), fine. Just don't relegate them to existing in the gaps in human knowledge, and they won't keep being displaced.

I dont think the real scientists are. Just the parrots that really do not understand it, but want to be with the "in crowd". Since they do not understand what they are parroting, they cant argue it, so they fear those that challenge them to it.

I'm sorry, was that aimed at me?

I've studied Mathamatics and Computational Science for several years now (have degrees in both), i've no PHD in any field of biology admittedly (although i used to live with one, does that count?) so yes much of my information is second hand, does this make me a non-scientist? To whom am i 'Parraoting' and what exactly am i unable to argue?

I've no problem with the philiosophical notion of a god, creator or whatever (infact i've discussed it many a time with friends and family). It's not the actual issue of whether there is one or not that is the problem here. It's the actual fact that you are tresspassing on the realms of science with philosophy. The two are seperate until factual evidence is provided.

If your comment wasn't aimed at me, then i apologise refutley for 'jumping the gun', but this is a matter of great personal importance to me (as i feel it should be to everyone who abides by the scientific method doctrine) and as such i've been known to overreact on occastion regarding it.

Evolutionary biologist  love this film. It's such a blatantly dishonest pile of propaganda It has crushed the last little bit of credibility the ID movement had, thanks Ben.

The irony of the producers expelling the evolutionary scientist they interviewed for the film from the screening of expelled is, well very very ironic.

First I want to say...thanks for stopping by.  I'm not sure we've met before and now I have yet another person to argue with...geesh!     (Are there any Creationists on JU besides Lula?)  So here goes....

This is the prevailing argument of Darwinists, and its not a good argument. There is not a shred of scientific evidence for either creation by God OR molecules to man evolution.

All that exists is data. That data is interpreted based on a worldview. Worldviews are biased. If I believe in evolution, then I say "there is not a shred of evidence for creationism." If I believe in creationism, then I say "there is not a shred of evidence for evolution." A perfect example of this is homology between species. A creationist observes homology and says "ah ha! a COMMON creator!"

But an evolutionist observes homology and says "ah ha! a COMMON ancestor!" Which one is right? Same data with different worldview leads to different interpretations.

You can get into all of the intricate criticisms of both creationism and evolution. In the end, it will always come down to personal bias. Neither is reproducible. Neither can be tested by the scientific method. For every argument there is a counter argument. These theories are either equally scientific or equally unscientific.

I personally believe in creationism because it is the most logical. This was an important point of the Expelled movie: the theory of evolution has some very illogical and messy ideas associated with it.

At worst, the two are equally valid theories.

exactly and I wouldn't limit this to just the evolution theory.  I see this also in religious circles all the time.  People are easily led and willing to take another's word if it seems right to them.  Parroting is so common nowadays.  No one really wants to take the time to really research their own belief.   Laziness is all too common today in all areas of Academia.  Believe me I'm seeing this all over the place....school and workplace. 

not really.  In fact more and more Scientists are really re-thinking the whole ID idea since it makes much more sense than they previously thought as time marches on.  It's much more logical like I said above.  Only I go a step further (don't support the ID theory) and believe in the creation account as recounted in scripture.......I'm biased and will admit to being so.  But to me after looking at both sides for years....I'm picking what is the most logical. 

Hey Stubby welcome back!  Now see I think, seriously, you've got this backwards!  

The propaganda is what the Evolutionists have been trying to feed us for years....it's pretty interesting the pull they have so much so they won't allow anything else taught anywhere else.  Now that's propaganda in their denial of allowing freedom of inquiry all over the place.  Did you even see the movie?   I'd like to know they why and wherefores behind your statement here. 

 

 

My son is less than a year away from getting his Ph.D in Science after receiving his undergrad in Molecular Biology.  He received a 4.0 in his Ph.D work and was able to finish in less time instead of the usual 2 years because he was able to convince those involved in the Oral Testing and the School he knew the material.  One of the inquisitors in the Oral Exam went to the head researcher at his school and said the school my son had received his undergrad degree in was doing something right, something that they needed to find out about.  Since my son came from a Christian school they couldn't comprehend why he did better than his fellow lab workers who came from secular....all the away.... evolutionary schools.

This is a surprise to the Evolutionists because they believe Christans are idiots when it comes to Science.  Not even close.  They have the same evidence but a different worldview.  That's all.   

Anyhow he's a strong Christian who has to keep his mouth shut nonetheless.  He said the Expelled movie was excellent.  Besides he had been telling me most of what we saw in the movie beforehand.  I was well aware of this strong hand against anyone who dared speak against the Evolutionary Theory.  It's instant career ending. 

The question is WHY? 

Not unless you are described by it. Do you feel threatened by creationism? If not, then apparently, no it is not.

For the record, I dont know what you think or feel, so no, the specific comment was not aimed at "anyone", but at a movement that is much a faith as creationism is, to some.

Hey KFC, good luck to your son with his studies (i'm personally all done with mine and now in a life of servitidue to my mortage lender hehe). In response to the comment in your initial post:

And this quote from the comments section:

It is highly upsetting to hear this, if it is the case.

I must say that most people are not condemmed because of their religious beliefs, but more so because of their application of religion in science. Due to the very nature of current world affairs, undermining someones academic ability in any field due to their religious beliefs would probably cost you your job (certainly here in the UK).

Scientists do however begin to hinder their career when, as i talked about earlier, introduce a philiosophical theory, into the actual application of the sceintific method. I've not seen the movie yet so i'm not sure of the circumstances regarding the man you mention in it, but i must say its illegal to persecute someone just because of their religious beliefs and forgive me if i'm inclined to believe that he lost his job because of his attempts to bring unproven facts into the scientific community.

This has happend to many people on a variaty of issues, not just when it comes to creationisim and intelligent design. You see Science has to be vigorous when acknowledging new theories.

Look at the careers of the men who said they had discovered Cold Fushion, they were ridiculed and publically humiliated because they jumped the gun and got ahead of themselves - in fairness to them they didn't even lie or fail to present evidence, it was down to them reproducing the experiment and i think the measuring of the results (which meassured interference from the sun accidently - where fushion is taking place all the time).

There is evidence of micro evolution and macro evolution (yes there is evidence, despite what uneducated lawyers would have you believe, my blog holds countless examples and discussions with lula on the subject), what we don't have evidence for and indeed don't fully understand is how life came from inanimate molecules to the first microbes.

This is the gap, and there is no evidence of anything here, otherwise it wouldn't be a gap. Hence such you cannot, by the principles of the scientific method, state where life and how life began, without the evidence.

Debate it in morality and religion classes, but do not teach it as science, because without the evidence it is not science and here in lies the reason for scientists (even those whom consider themselves religious) so stauntly opposing intelligent design.

 

If this is the case I'm thinking about, it's actually been uncovered that the portrayal in Expelled was disingenuous, seeing as how the paper that supposedly got him 'let go' was published in his last journal, of which everyone knew he was quitting for a year and a half beforehand - and he's since come back to work for the same journal at a higher position.

I still need to see the movie before I pass my final-final judgement, but if you haven't listened to it yet, it would really behoove you to listen to the interview with one of the associate producers that Scientific American did. It certainly left me asking questions about the whole situation - both sides of the argument.



It's got another 8 parts that you can find on Youtube at this gentleman's page. Anyway, I know it's like an hour worth of listening, but it's worth the time.

Have a good day, my friend.

I claim that the Creator was created by Antoine, the Uber-God.

Prove me wrong!

It's science, my claim, science. But it "just a theory".

 

Well I claim that I created Antoine the übergod. So there.

The problem with science is that we can never look deep enough or far enough to know anything, or so it says itself, therefore since religion can provide an answer to everything and does not contradict the laws of science or evidence of history, would it not prove the best choice?

But you see, in a world filled with one religion, that idea might hold weight.

Since, however, we live in a world filled with thousands of religions, with dozens of different creation myths, none of which can prove anything, which religion would you pick to be the 'best choice', erathoniel? Yours? Hinduism? The religion of the Incas?

Do you see why putting the Creator in the classroom makes things messy? There are too many diametrically opposed ideas as to who that Creator is and how he created anything.

So no, religion is not the best choice for the science class. In the philosophy class, or the comparative religion class, or in your own home, sure.

But not in the science class.